Read Denny v. Elizabeth Arden Salons, Inc., 05-1228

Summary judgment in favor of defendant salon is affirmed to the extent the district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' state law claim and its Title II claim, because the salon is not a "place of public accommodation," however, summary judgment is reversed to the extent the district court erred in dismissing plaintiffs' section 1981 claim, because plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence to create a triable dispute of fact over whether the salon engaged in the form of discrimination that section 1981 expressly prohibits.

Appellate Information

• Argued 05/25/2006
• Decided 08/09/2006
• Published 08/09/2006

Judges

• Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Fourth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  James Arthur DeVita, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellants.  Benjamin Gaillard Chew, Patton Boggs, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellee.   ON BRIEF:  Stephanie J. Quincy, Rachel M. Bacalzo, Sherman & Howard, L.L.C., Phoenix, Arizona, for Appellee.